Now I know why Republicans don't want the return of the Fairness Doctrine

[Catherine Vincent]

By reading articles such as this one:

Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act." "The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard." But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.

"Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals," Kincaid said in an interview. "When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it's muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it."

Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote.

"Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government," Kincaid continued. "There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place."
more...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html

On CSPAN this a.m. one of the topics Lamb had was "Should they bring back the Fairness doctrine?. I think all of the conservatives that called in didn't want it back. And because conservatives and their hate radio have put this message out there, I fear it will not be back. They think we want to take over their hate radio. Idiots. I believe they'd be willing to start a civil war over this.

[WCGreen]

1. Hey buckoo (lieberson)...

The people own the airwaves so get over it and give us what we want for a change...

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. The airwaves belong to everyone.

Bring back the fairness doctrine because an owner of a radio station may have a set of political views but they do not own the frequency of the actual station they run on. The government owns the frequencies.

[tech3149]

11. The big problem there are the ownership rules

I haven't done the research yet but Malloy referred to the growth of Limbaugh in his Buzzflash interview. The way he tells it, Roger Ailes sold Limbaugh to stations around the country for nothing but the cost of a few minutes commercial break time for national advertising. If hundreds or thousands of stations are under the control of the same cheap-assed program manager and get an offer for free content, are they going to pass it up?

The Fairness Doctrine will just force an individual broadcaster to provide the most watered down discussions, the kind sure to provide the least informative, least offensive message. Enforcing the public service aspect of the FCC licensing agreements would do much more to assure a more informed public. It might put a kink in the music/entertainment only stations, but it would cover more of the airwaves. One thing that would need to be assured is that public service air-time should require balanced discussion. WRIF is a good example of a station that profits from the public airways but still does their public service gig. Hey, it might be at 10:00 PM on Sunday night (3 hours out of 168/wk), but it's an honest, albeit liberal discussion. Think about it, you give away less than 2% of your productive time to profit from 165hrs a week! Radio programming is too far past the point that the Fairness Doctrine could do any good. Most stations are single-format 24/7. Most are split between entertainment, special interest, and general discussion. I don't think it's a bad thing to force them to do at least some public service broadcasting (even if it's only local interest, perhaps especially) for the privilege. It might not be a bad idea to require broadcast during the most accessible broadcast hours (how many of us get up at 0 dark thirty to see the local public interest shows Sunday on TV?).

The RW a** holes have their panties in a bunch because the opposition has 10% of the radio air-time that they do, but they're feeling the effects. What we really need is more independent local ownership of stations. That might give us the chance that more programming will be done in the interest of the local public.

[cui bono]

15. Thom Hartman was saying the same thing about the Fairness Doctrine.

That he thought it would cause there to be less political discourse since they wouldn't want to have both sides on and actually have to deal with an real discussion.

[tech3149]

17. That's the problem with trying to use the Fairness Doctrine

Today the stations are programmed and owned from some central point. Even if they have a local program director, They're just a payed flunkie and will do what their told unless they want to look for a new job.
Thom worked in radio back when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect and it was a juggling act that most weak-minded, limp-willed radio people couldn't deal with today. That's why I say that local ownership and control is the only answer. If I can drive 5 miles to knock heads with the manager for not doing their job, it beats buying stock in the company and flying half way across the country to be told I have no standing because I'm not a major stockholder. Owners Rule, and the more the merrier!

[Sanctified]

2. What affects would this have on Progressive Radio?

I keep hearing that conservatives are afraid of this but nothing on how this will affect radio shows that I listen too like Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes.

[Warpy]

5. From what I've read here, Freepers call in to Air America

all the time. Their side is heard.

Contrast that with the numbers of liberals who get through to the right wing ranters. The few who do have to lie their way on and then the host gibbers a few seconds and cuts them off.

They don't want ANYONE flustering their ranters.

[Sanctified]

9. So this is based on the callers not the Host?

That seems a little odd, so there really is no issue as long as a Radio show has just as many right wing callers as left wing callers? What if the radio show has no right wing callers, I know with the Thom Hartmann local show here in Portland they get like 1 Rightwinger for every 10 liberals.

[Warpy]

12. When someone begins a sentence with "So," prepare

for the marching strawmen. This is no exception.

The problem with right wing air time is that NOTHING else gets through, not even callers. That is what the Fairness Doctrine was set up to address. It had a sunset clause, alas, and that is why the catastrophe called Reagan was allowed to veto its reinstitution 3 times.

[Sanctified]

13. My issue is I only listen to KPOJ

And I don't want to listen to right wing talking points, if this fairness doctrine is going to require my local radio station to start allowing right wingers time I don't want to hear it.

[Warpy]

19. It would feel different after a few years, most likely

Right now we're drowning in right wing cant and White House bullshit and there is little relief from it. After a few years of fairness and real balance on the airwaves, maybe some of us (me!) who listen to music and never, ever tune into talk radio might get curious about what the right wing loonies are saying these days and tune back in.

Then again, maybe not.

We do know that the constant vomiting of unanswered hate from right wing media is dangerous. Hate radio is what started Rwanda and Bosnia, as just two recent examples. Hate must be answered if it isn't going to tear a country apart.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. I hope the "F" doesn't stand for Friedman.

The only reason it's fresh on my mind is because alot of his laissez-faire capitalistic corporacrat positions have been posted here, lately.

[baldguy]

3. They don't want federal bureaucrats to dictate the content of radio and TV shows

But they're perfectly willing to allow corporate stooges to do so.

[TygrBright]

4. What is this 'conservative media,' grasshopper?

>>they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals<<

Bu-bu-but... I thought the media was LIBERAL!?!?

:exploding head:

amazedly,
Bright

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Good catch!

:-)

[UTUSN]

8. K&R #1

[Initech]

10. If this passes, Limbaugh's toast.

And Hannity, and O'Reilly, and Beck. The GOP would lose air time for a lot of its propaganda arm. This would be great!

[Hubert Flottz]

14. The GOPers don't stand a chance if the game isn't rigged!

They know what losers they are.

[Generic Brad]

16. They dominate about 90% of talk radio already

And they're still losing. They're only happy if they have the whole enchilada.

[lpbk2713]

18. Assholes like Limbore have had their fifteen minutes anyhow.

Let him retire to the Dominican Republic with all the money he has made being the highest paid spokesman for Big Oil. I sure as hell won't miss him.

[Maat]

20. Actually, he wouldn't make a good speaker in front of a live audience ..

without a sign language interpreter.

He's almost totally deaf (reportedly) - allegedly because of his drug abuse. Emergency room physicians began noticing some years back that many abusers of oxycontin lost their hearing abilities, and my emergency room physician friend confirms this suspicion with his own stories.

I had a radio insider tell me that, in order to do his job, he sees everything typed on a computer screen, and that he's learned to read lips. Anyone heard the same thing?

I just think that it's a shame that he doesn't come clean about his addiction and its effects.

Apparently, the link between opiods, such as vicodin and oxycontin, is a bit controversial, with other things in the medication being questioned as the cause, but Wiki has an entry:

"Extremely heavy Vicodin abuse is known to cause hearing impairment. There has been speculation that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's hearing loss was at least in part caused by his admitted addiction to narcotic pain killers, in particular Vicodin and OxyContin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_impairment

There seems to be quite a few anecdotal tales about going deaf from a chemical typically put into the opiod dosages:
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/addiction/messages/30937a.html .

But, I digress ... thanks for listening.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. Sure. There'd be no more hate-mongering "mouthpieces" profiteering off,...

,...people's weaknesses or anger or hot buttons because LIES WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE.